HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-23-R2AR-rpt.pdf REPORT OF THE ROUTE 2A AD-HOC REVIEW COMMITTEE
JUNE 23, 1993
CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
"Review the plans as presented [in the Final Environmental Impact Report and by Boston
Survey Consultants] and to make comments at the public hearing."
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Diana Garcia, Joseph Gilbert, John Hayward, Louise Kava, Eric Michelson, Judith Uhrig
and Leo McSweeney, liaison to the Selectmen.
METHODOLOGY
The Committee heard two presentations from Boston Survey Consultants and comments
from the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, the Town Engineer and a representative from Minuteman
Vocational Technical School. In sub-groups we examined the comments of the Secretary of
Environmental Affairs office, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, the City of Cambridge Water
Department, the Flatley Company the Lexington Conservation Commission, the Minuteman
National Historical Park, as well as the FEIR itself. The reports of individual members on
segments of the information are attached as appendices under the following headings:
A. Safety
B Aesthetics
C Environment
D Cambridge Watershed
E. Scope of Reconstruction
The Committee acknowledges that at present there are serious safety hazards at this
section of road as well as numerous environmental concerns, including the potential for damaging
hazardous spills. We also recognize that there are Federal and State mandates controlling some
design options.
From discussion among the committee we have adopted a list of concerns and questions
that should be addressed before permits are issued. In instances where there was not consensus
on a point the varying positions are noted.
COMMENTS
1 The Committee as a whole agrees that the Town should be looking for the most
scaled-down plan possible consistent with safety needs.
To this end we urge that most serious exploration be given to the possibility offered by
BSC that the third lane of the east-bound approach between Forbes Road and Route 128,
and the new Massachusetts DPW access road be eliminated from the project.
QUESTIONS
1 What provisions will be made for pedestrians using the bus stop and its waiting area?
2. Are slopes or retaining walls being proposed?
3 Who acts as "clerk of the works" during construction?
4 Is there any way of knowing or ensuring that the replication plan is sufficient or will work
as hoped?
5 Is there a way of calculating whether additional traffic will be drawn from Route 2?
6. What information is there regarding long-term impacts on the watershed?
7 The traffic projections we were provided are supposed to represent an annual growth rate
of 2% per year for five years, yet the actual numbers calculate to between 1.3% and 3%
per year between 1992 and 1997 What is the explanation ?
8 What differences would it make if Sheraton had a drive onto Massachusetts Avenue,
instead of or in addition to the one onto Marrett Road?
9 How will the design as proposed lessen the hazardous spill possibilities?
10 How will the proposed design lessen the incidence of traffic accidents?
11 Will there be further opportunities for citizen input during the permitting process?
12. What role might citizens play in monitoring the process?
FINAL COMMENTS
The Committee has some concern that our charge was not an investigative one but rather
a review Coupling this with the short time frame in which we operated, no in-depth attention has
been given to the circumstances of the accidents that have prompted this redesign. Therefore, we
cannot honestly comment on a basic question: Is this design the best solution for the site
considering the nature of the accidents experienced?
3
ROUTE 2A AD HOC COMM. APPENDIX B
JUNE 23 1993 JOHN HAYWARD
SAFETY
Keeping in mind the Selectmen's charge to the Committee to "Review the plans as
presented [in the Final Environmental Impact Report and by Boston Survey Consultants]
and to make comments at the public hearing," I have reviewed the material presented to the
Committee with an eye toward safety concerns.
At the Committee's May 26th meeting, both the Chief of Police and Fire Chief commented
on the serious safety hazards presented by Route 2A(Marrett Road) from the bridge over Route
128 to the intersection at Massachusetts Avenue. Over a period of thirty months ending on May
10 1993 this stretch of roadway has been the scene of 129 accidents, including three fatalities
and numerous serious injuries. Clearly the roadway presents a significant traffic hazard. Attempts
to improve the situation date back to October 19 1981 when the business community provided
$21,000 in funding for a North Lexington Traffic Study
Because the roadway is located in an environmentally sensitive area, any improvement
must achieve a delicate balance between transportation needs and environmental protection.
Therefore, the yardstick by which to measure the plan is whether it provides an acceptable level of
service consistent with maximum safety and minimum adverse environmental impact? More
specifically, does the plan have the minimum amount of traffic lanes for the shortest distance
consistent with an acceptable level of service?
Concerning traffic projections, it would be instructive to know the basis for these
projections. Is it empirical evidence based on historical growth or a theoretical hypothesis based
on speculative economic growth in the area? Furthermore, it is reasonable to request a sensitivity
analysis be conducted to examine the implications of alternative traffic projections on the level of
service. The Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) has provided a sensitivity analysis only
for its preferred alternative (FEIR, p. 91, quoted in Comments of Lexington Conservation
Commission, dated May 24, 1993, p.3) Finally it is reasonable to ask what is the margin of error
in the traffic projections, and what margin of error would necessitate a substantial revision of the
plan?
4
ROUTE 2A AD HOC COMM APPENDIX B
JUNE 23 , 1993 LOUISE KAVA
AESTHETICS
It is unfortunate that consideration of the aesthetic
effects of projects is not routinely included in an environmental
impact statement Our environment has an affect on our senses
whether consciously or unconsciously Homeowners lavish care
on lawns and gardens; cities create parks in the midst of
buildings in recognition of this fact
Route 2A from its intersection with Route 128 to
Massachusetts Avenue is a two lane country road with wooded
hills and water plants along the roadside Traveling east,
the road is is an important entry point to the Town of Lexington
Westbound, it makes a pleasant transition from the highway to
the National Historic Park which has its origin along this
stretch of road Mr Gall, Superintendent of the Park, has
said that any increase in traffic is extremely detrimental to
what they are trying to accomplish, namely allow visitors to
experience the ambiance of the 18th century around the time
of the Revolution Despoiling the gateway along Marrett Road
will also have a negative effect
Traffic and safety concerns have made it necessary to have
some reconstruction of the road However, the planning has
not to date included any consideration of the destructive inroads
that a six to five to four lane highway will make on this
pleasant, natural scene The proposed relocation of Forbes
Road and the Sheraton Drive calls for the removal of the hills
on either side of the road thus leaving it all but denuded as
it comes off the Route 128 overpass The intended expansion
of the Lexington Sheraton will cause further defoliation In
appearance, the area will look worse than the Bedford Street
intersection The filling of wetlands to allow widening of
the road to four lanes will destroy many of the trees that now
border it
The plans, if carried out in the existing form, will do
nothing to increase safety for pedestrians or cyclists and may
very well attract more traffic to Route 2A Before proceeding
with these plans, we should have the opinion of a another expert
on the need for a second traffic light The light at the
Massachusetts Avenue/Voc-Tech intersection would control
eastbound traffic making a gap in the flow of traffic which
would allow cars in the holding lane to turn left into Forbes
Road Eliminating the traffic light at Forbes Road would make
it possible to avoid moving the Sheraton Drive which would
5
greatly lessen the damage to the woodland The gap in the flow
of traffic at the Mass Ave /Voc Tech would also facilitate
a right hand turn from the Sheraton driveway Consideration
should be given to making the appearance of the traffic light
as unobtrusive as possible
The State Secretary of Environmental Affairs in the FEIR
Certificate has seen flaws in the proposal She urges that
the Massachusetts Highway Department, the proponent, "continue
a dialogue with the permitting agencies that is open to the
possibility of a modified or alternative project We hope that
they will do so in the remaining phase of the design process
6
ROUTE 2A AD HOC COMM. APPENDIX C
JUNE 23 1993 DIANA T GARCIA
ENVIRONMENT
The primary environmental concern of this project is clearly stated by the Massachusetts
Audubon Society in its letter dated May 24, 1993 in response to the FEIR. The Society says the
project "involves substantial widening of a roadway in a sensitive area containing wetlands and
streams which feed into a major public water supply serving the City of Cambridge."
All environmental criticism from various agencies and improvements made by the MHD to
the plan stem from the importance of protecting Cambridge's drinking water The following is a
summary of highlights of the most recent comments and responses made by the interested parties.
On June 1, 1993 Trudy Coxe, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, issued a Certificate
that states that MHD's FEIR was in compliance with state environmental regulations. This is not
an approval of the project. It is an opinion and guide for the proponent (MHD) and the agencies
that will be granting permits as the project moves along. Lexington Conservation Commission
administers the protection of wetlands, Department of Environmental Protection issues a Water
Quality Certificate, under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, which assures that
proposed activities will maintain water quality standards.
In the Certificate, the Secretary offers several recommendations to MED for refining and
improving various aspects of the plan that have not been sufficiently resolved. MHD is urged to
"continue a dialogue with the permitting agencies that is open to the possibility of a modified or
alternative project" because of several reasons.
1) The plan still requires significant wetlands alterations (now at 10,830 s.f down from
the original 18,500 s.f proposed in the ENF). The Secretary indicates that there are" alternatives
which would lessen the wetlands impacts even further " As examples, she identifies wetlands
benefits from changing the layout of Forbes Road and using retaining walls along the southern
side of Marrett Road. She states that "these issues should be addressed in permitting."
2) There is "uncertainty of success with the wetlands replication." MHD is planning to
build two replication areas to doubly compensate for the square footage of lost wetlands. Area 1
is located where the Sheraton driveway is currently Area 2 is west of the MELD yard near Route
128
Wetlands protection falls under Lexington Conservation Commission's jurisdiction. A
consultant retained by the ConsComm, Dr Norton Nickerson, states that because of its location,
Area 2 will "in no way help improve the water quality of the road runoff reaching the wetlands
along Route 2A. " The ConsComm therefore worries that if replication Area 1 fails (not an
uncommon event), Area 2 will not perform the same cleansing function for the runoff that works
its way into the Cambridge Reservoir watershed.
7
The Certificate advises that the proposal would be enhanced through a commitment by
MHD to "undertake additional monitoring or remediation steps, if necessary for unanticipated
problems with the created wetlands."
3) The stormwater drainage system will need careful, long-term maintenance. The Mass.
Audubon Society has pointed out that this roadway is a low-salt area and will therefore receive a
large amount of sand. The stormwater system will not operate efficiently without regular
inspection and cleaning. The Secretary issues a challenge to the permitting agencies "to negotiate
a reasonable and enforceable maintenance plan for this project."
4) The plan shows points at which road drainage could be blocked off in order to contain
hazardous spills. The Secretary recommends that an emergency spill response plan should be
prepared in consultation with all affected parties including written instructions for using the
block-off points and a call list for notifying the appropriate people.
The MEPA Certificate takes into consideration decisions and recommendations made by
another authority, that is, the Northeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental
Affairs (DEP). DEP wrote a response to the FEIR and is responsible for the separate
environmental process of granting the project a Water Quality Certificate (WQC).
In its comments to the FEIR, DEP has given MHD permission to fill wetlands as part of
this project. Earlier, there had been a question whether any wetlands filling would be allowed
because this area is considered to be Outstanding Resource Waters (bordering a tributary of a
public water supply). MHD may fill; however, DEP "anticipates a more detailed wetland
replication scheme and monitoring program will be included with the application for a WQC. "
DEP indicates that alternatives analysis, minimization and mitigation are still required. One
alternative mentioned in DEP's letter is retaining walls rather than vegetated slopes, which would
need more stabilization. DEP also has questions and recommendations about the stormwater
drainage system.
Many of the comments from the various interested parties, DEP Lexington ConsComm,
Mass. Audubon Society and Cambridge Water Dept. as well as the Certificate issued by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs, point to the progress that has been made in reducing
environmental impacts by reducing wetlands loss and improving stormwater and pollutant runoff.
However the issues that remain all leave room for further changes to the plan that would result
in:
- saving of wetlands
- long term inspection and maintenance of drainage systems and roadway banks
- more promising -eplication attempts
- well articulated programs for hazardous spill containment and control
•
The MEPA Certificate makes it incumbent on the permitting agencies to hold MED
accountable for addressing and resolving these issues.
8
ROUTE 2A AD HOC COMM. APPENDIX D
JUNE 23 1993 JOSEPH GILBERT
CAMBRIDGE WATERSHED
On Wednesday June 9 I met with Chip Norton, Manager of the Cambridge Watershed.
In our conversation he stated that he thought the Environmental Secretary's Certificate was
vague. He said it wasn't clear if a 401 Water Quality Certificate was needed, but that he would
like a WQC, regardless.
He also was concerned about 1 1 banking. If that were in order, he would like to see a
plan for maintaining the banking and the stormwater system and would also like to know who will
enforce it.
He was glad to see provisions for emergency spill containment. He said the Cambridge
Watershed and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council will work closely with other departments
to organize an emergency response system.
In closing, he told me he was concerned about the short and long term impact of a project
this big. If built according to plan he would be satisfied, but what will happen five years from
now if there is no maintenance plan for storm water control or if the plan is lax. Also, monitoring
during construction should be required in the Order of Conditions. Mother concern is whether
the completed project will be so efficient that it will draw more traffic from Route 2, thus
increasing the odds for a hazardous spill or accident.
9
ROUTE 2A AD HOC COMM APPENDIX E
JUNE 23, 1993 ERIC I MICHELSON
SCOPE OF RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECT GOAL- To improve public safety by improving the capacity of the roadway The
town has expressed a moral obligation to the community to alleviate the problem as best
possible.
PROJECT METHOD - To create 2 signalized intersections, in order to control traffic conflict
and improve access to and from Marrett Road and the side roads.
PRESENT CONDITIONS
Marrett Road(RT 2A) carries east-west traffic to and from Rt. 2 and communities to our west,
Hanscom Airfield, Rt. 128, South Lexington and communities to our east.
Massachusetts Avenue intersects Marrett Road and carries traffic to and from Lexington Center,
the Wood Street- Hartwell Avenue area, Paul Revere Road and other neighborhoods onto
Marrett Road for access to Rts. 2 & 128.
VoTech Driveway intersects Marrett Road opposite Mass. Avenue and is the main entrance for
the Minuteman Voc-Tech High and the only access to the Cranberry Hill Office Park
Forbes Road intersects Marrett Road east of Mass Avenue and west of Rt. 128. It is the only
access for a significant Industrial/Office complex.
Sheraton Driveway intersects Marrett Road east of Mass Avenue and west of Forbes Road and
is the only access for the Sheraton Lexington Hotel.
None of the intersections are presently signalized. Marrett Road is a 2-lane road and it's
traffic has the right-of-way To enter Marrett Road from a side street requires waiting for a break
in traffic. Thru traffic on Marren Road will get backed up by cars stopped to make left turns
onto side streets. The Forbes Road intersection has a traffic control officer assigned during
evening peak hours.
During morning and evening peak periods these intersections experience extreme delays
and blockages. Side street traffic has difficulty entering Marrett Road, and vehicles on Marrett
Road making left turns cause back-ups. In the language of traffic analysis these intersections
operate at a Level of Service LOS) of"F" Intersections with a Level of Service of"F" have
"forced flow or breakdown conditions with queuing along critical approaches. Operating
conditions are highly unstable as characterized by erratic vehicle movements along each
approach"
How bad are present conditions? The following 1992 traffic volumes as presented in the
DEIR illustrate the problem.
During the Mornin¢ Peak neriod at Mass Avenue and Marrett Road:
Of the 1119 vehicles/hour (v/h) moving west on Marrett Road, the 218 v/h attempting to
turn left into the VoTech Driveway have to find a break in traffic from the 769 v/h traveling east
on Marrett Road (218 v/h is 3-4 vehicles per minute). These left turns have the potential and do
10
stop traffic while waiting to cross opposing traffic. The conflict is further complicated by 30 v/h
attempting to go from Mass Avenue to VoTech Drive, and 65 v/h turning left out of Mass
Avenue. Simultaneous east bound Marrett Road traffic includes 769 v/h thru, and 58 v/h left
turns onto Mass Avenue and 22 v/h right turns in to VoTech.
Just 700 feet east of this intersection at Forbes and Marrett Roads. Morning Peak traffic is
similar:
Of the 1427 v/h traveling west on Marrett Road 205 v/h turn left. At this point 856 v/h
are heading east on Marrett Road as thru traffic, and 43 v/h are turning right onto Forbes Road
List present trouble spots based on traffic information.
Evenine Peak traffic volumes trouble snots are:
Mass Avenue and Marrett Road: 87 v/h left turns from Mass Avenue to Marrett Road,
crossing 783 v/h eastbound Marrett Road, 1012 v/h westbound Marrett Road 87 v/h left turns
from Marrett Road eastbound onto Mass Avenue. 70 v/h left turns form Marrett Road eastbound
onto VoTech Drive. 108 v/h exit VoTech Drive, 31 v/h left, 12 v/h thru, 65 v/h right.
Forbes and Marrett Roads: 194 v/h exit Forbes Road, 52 v/h left turns and 152 right
turns. Marrett Road westbound volume is 1141 v/h and eastbound is 927 v/h.
PROPOSED CHANGES - (As per the FEIR)
- signalize the intersection of Marrett Road, Mass Avenue and VoTech Drive. Traffic conflict is
controlled by using traffic lights.
- move Forbes Road and the Sheraton Drive to create a common intersection with Marrett Road
and to signalize this intersection. This consolidates the number of places where side
streets meet Marrett Road and then traffic lights control traffic conflict
connect the MHD Maintenance Drive to Forbes Road to reduce the number of side streets
intersecting Marrett Road.
widen Marrett Road to create left turn lanes at all intersections. This will reduce the potential
for left turning vehicles to back-up thru traffic.
- widen Marrett Road to create an eastbound stacking lane for storage of stopped vehicles
between the 2 signalized intersections.
- add a left turn lane to Mass Avenue.
create a "smart" system of synchronized signalized intersections. Designate "green-time" by
monitoring demand (whether or not vehicles are there to use the green light). This will
help reduce delays on side roads, assist left turns, and allow through traffic on Marrett
Road not to back up onto Rt. 128 or into either of the two intersections.
create a "right turn only" exit lane at Forbes Road and add a lane to Marrett Road to provide
direct access to the Rt. 128 on-ramp.
- change the turn radius of Mass Avenue/Marrett Road to accommodate right hand truck turns
from Marrett Road (State mandated).
- widen the VoTech Drive at Marrett Road for right turns onto Marrett Road.
remove the crest of the hill east of the Forbes Road intersection
- widen Marrett Road to 2 lanes per side (in addition to the left turn lane) from Forbes Road to
the point west of Rt. 128 where Marrett Road is presently a total of 4 lanes. This will
provide westbound stacking capacity and eastbound lane balance.
- install a storm drainage system to the reconstructed section of road.
11
- replicate wetlands
Much of the need for additional lanes comes from the need for to provide storage or
"queue" space for vehicles stopped at the traffic signals. Attempts to down size the project have
to balance traffic volumes, and the anticipated space needed to queue cars waiting for a green
light. The following diagram calculates queue capacity by dividing the length of the lane by 21'
(a vehicle length that averages both the length of cars and trucks).
(MASS AVESHERATON DRIVE
MARRETT RD 4* / I I\ i_J 119 C�
19 cars 119 cars
-\.,,S.>""10 cars I 11 cars / 5 cars 113 cars
unlimited 19 cars
19 cars
17 (maybe removed)
VoTECH DRIVE rThr—
FORBES RD
QUEUE LENGTH (#of cars) and LANE CONFIGURATION
not to scale
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
Will the project solve today's problems?
Present problems include dealing with the existing traffic volumes and solving safety
issues. In addition keep in mind that all proposed plans must meet State and Federal mandated
design and construction standards in order to qualify for funding.
Why are 5 and 10 year traffic projections needed?
These traffic projections are needed to qualify project for state and federal funding.
They were not done to predict future levels of traffic, but are requirements to prove to funding
agencies that all plans meet and exceed present requirements.
Are the 2% annual traffic growth projections accurate or realistic?
The following factors could realistically contribute to 2% growth in traffic.
1) Local based traffic increases as presently vacant space is rented.
2) Regional population growth leads to an overall growth of"background" traffic that
passes through this section of road. Traffic from towns to our west travel this section of road.
Growth in these communities have the potential to increase traffic in our town, even if we
experience 0% growth.
3)A change of drivers' habits will occur signalization of these intersections.
12
Will signalizing these intersections "attract" more use of these intersections?
Drivers will adjust their habit's to take advantage of the most convenient route. There
will be an increased use of this area by drivers who have in the past avoided this area and have
instead traveled on residential side streets i.e. School Street, Old Mass Avenue, Wood Street
How much additional capacity is designed into project?
In order to qualify for funding the new intersections must obtain a Level of Service of
"D" or better using 5 year projections. The LOS of the intersection of Mass & Marrett at the
PM peak is "D" at the 1997 projections. This low LOS is due to the elimination of the
westbound stacking lane between Mass Avenue and Forbes Road, and the need to therefor
provide more green time to Marrett Road thru traffic. This uses green time at the expense of
left turns and Mass/VoTech traffic. Note: LOS on Marrett WB TH-RT is "B" and Marrett EB
TH-RT is "C", while Marrett EB LT is "F", Marrett WB LT is "0", and Mass Avenue
LT RT TH is "D" The LOS at Forbes & Marrett at the PM peak is "C" at the 1997
projections,when right turn lane is removed as has been proposed.
(WB=westbound, EB eastbound, TH=thru traffic, LT=left turns, RT=right turns)
Can there be 3 lanes between Mass and Forbes, instead of 4 lanes?
The section of Marrett Road between Mass Avenue and Forbes Road is proposed to have
4 lanes; 1 left-hand turn lane (shared by both directions), 1 lane Westbound, and 2 lanes
Eastbound. First looks would suggest that if 1 lane is sufficient for Westbound traffic than 1
lane should be adequate going East. Original designs had this section of road at 5 lanes, to allow
for adequate space to stack stopped traffic. An effort to reduce the project scope lead to
dropping of 1 lane Westbound. This reduced the space for stacked vehicles and created the
potential for backups (Each of these lanes has the room for 19 cars). However by adjusting the
synchronized traffic cycles the chance of a backup was reduced. The proposed cycles will give
move green time to Marrett Road thru traffic at Mass Avenue than to Marrett Road thru traffic at
Forbes Road The 2 lanes Eastbound are there to store traffic that goes through the Mass
Avenue light and is stopped by the Forbes Road light. It is there to accommodate the right turn
volume from the VoTech drive and the increased left turns from Mass Avenue. Removal of 1
lane Eastbound would eliminate this needed storage area and could cause traffic backups into the
Mass Avenue intersections during both AM and PM peak hours
POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES AND PROBLEMS
Signalize Mass and Marrett only and do not change Forbes Road or Sheraton Drive
Traffic going into and out of Forbes Road will still be a problem. A traffic officer will
still be needed, and his presence will have the potential to back traffic up into the Mass Avenue
intersection. The officer's safety will remain an issue, as the afternoon sun will be in the
drivers' eyes unless a major road realignment is done. A left turn lane will still be necessary at
both Forbes Road and at Sheraton Drive, to prevent left turns from backing up traffic. Crossing
this additional lane will increase the danger of exiting Forbes Road or Sheraton Drive. In
addition, there will be a dangerous "blank spot" of pavement in the space between the left turn
lane into Forbes Road and the left turn lane into the Sheraton Drive.
13
tlF
Sienalize Mass and Marrett only connect Sheraton Drive to Mass Avenue and Forbes Road to
VoTech Drive
This would eliminate the need for more than three lanes, but it would require running
Forbes Road through the wetlands at the base of Cranberry Hill in order to connect it to the
VoTech Drive.
Create nedestrian and bikeway space
This would create the need to increase the overall road width and therefor increase the
amount of wetland filling. It will also encourage these people to attempt to cross the on-ramps
and off-ramps of Rt. 128.
14